SURVEY OF FUTURE WATER RECLAMATION POTENTIAL FINAL … · survey of future water reclamation...

SURVEY OF FUTURE WATER RECLAMATION POTENTIAL

FINAL REPORT

PREPARED BY

July, 1993

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1

.. SECTION I .INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 3 DEFINING WATER REUSE ............................................................................ .. 3

........................... .............................................. SECTION I1 .. SURVEY DESCRIPTION .. 3 PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY ............................................................ - ............... 3

.. ............................................................................................... SECTION nr .FINDINGS 4 OVERVIEW OF SURVEY RETULTS .................................................................... 4

...................................... NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS. PROJECTS AND SITES 8 ................................................................................ EXISTING WATER REUSE 9

BY CATEGORY .................................................................................. 9 BY REGION .......................................................................................... 11

nrrURE REUSE POTENTIAL ............................................................................ 12 ............................................... PROBABILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION 18

.................................................................................... BY CATEGORY 18 BY REGION .......................................................................................... 18

................................... EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON WATER RECLAMATION 20 ......................................................... PURPOSES OF WATER REUSE PROJECTS 20

................................................................................. CAPITAL EXPENDlTWE.5 20 .............................................. ENVIRONMENTAL USE OF RECYCLED WATER 20

SECTION IV .. .FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR WATER RECYCLING ................................... 32 WATER RECLAMATION AS A WATER RESOURCE ......................................... 32 IMPEDIMENTS TO WATER RECLAMATION .................................................... 32 WATER RECLAMATION POTENTIAL ELSEWHERE .............................. ....... 32

ISRAEL ............................................................................................... 33 ARIZONA ........................................................................................... 33

.............................................................................................. FLORIDA 33 NEVADA. ............................................................................................. 33

.......... SECTION V .. .CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 33 SURPASSING THE STATE'S GOAL ................................................................... 33

..................................................................................... ECONOMIC BENEFK , 33 CLOSING THE STATE'S WATER SUPPLY GAP .............................................. 34

SECTION VI . . APPENDICES APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B LIST OF RESPONDENTS APPENDIX C CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALlTY CONTROL BOARD REGIONS APPENDIX D- PROJECTIONS OF WATER RECYCLING CAPACITY BY REGION APPENDIX E LlST OF RESPONDENTS AND "PURPOSE" OF PROJECTS APPENDIX F CAPlTAL COSTS BY RESPONDENTS APPENDIX G OTHER SIZTDIES APPENDIC H SURVEY RESPONSES & DATA VADlTY APPENDIX I SURVEY PROCEDURES APPENDIX J ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................... 1 . Number of Survey Responses Received and Projects Reported. 2 . Number of Total Reuse Sites by Category ..................................................... ......................................................... 3 . Number of Total Reuse Sites by Region .............. ........... 4 . Prrsent Water Reuse by Category ,.. ................................ ........................ ............................................ 5 . Present Water Reuse by Region .. ..... .................. ........................... 6 . Water Reuse Categories by Regions ........... .. 7 . Cumulative Potential Water Recycling Total by Category of Reuse .............

............................ 8 . Cumulative Potential Water Recycling Total by Region ., ......................... 9 . List of Other Influences and Their Impact on Water Reuse 10 . "h-pose" of Water Reuse Projects ...............................................................

............................. . 11 Projected Capital Expenditures for Water Reuse Projects

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................ 1 . Projected Water Recycling in Caliomia 2 . Total Potential Water Reuse in California by User Category .., ....................

................... ........ 3 . Total Potential Water Reuse in California by Region ... 4 . Existing Water Reuse by Category .................................................................

................................................................... 5 . Existing Water Reuse by Region ..... 6 . Future Trends in Water Reuse Potential by Category of U se. .....,...,.......

....................................... 7 . Future Trends in Water Reuse Potential by Region .......................................... 8 . Budgetary hoblems Impacting Water Recycling .......................................... 9 . Economic Recession Impacting Water Recycling

.............................. . 10 Drought Impacting Water Recyding ............................... .................................................. . 11 Water Shortage Impacting Water Recycling

........................................ . 12 Regulatory Mandates Impacting Water Recycling .................................................. . 13 Public Opinion Impacting Water Recycliig

14 . Political Pressures impacting Water Recycling ............................................. . 15 Other Influences Impacting Water Recycling ..............................................

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

his is a rqort of a survey of public and - -- private waterand sewerage agenaes in T California involved in water recycling. The centr dgurpose of the survey was to determine the agencies' plans, pojiections and vision for future water

reuse by category of use and by region. Even though the report frequently refers to this as the "potential" for reuse, readers should bear in mind that the real potential reuse is the total wastewater stream in the stat-ently being wasted-some 2.5 to 3 million acre-ft per year (AFY). In addition, the s w e y set out to determine what factors stimulated growth in water reuse and which ones were deterrents. The survey was commissioned by the Board of Directors of the WateReuse M a t i o n of Califomia. The mission of this Assodation is to promote and inaease water recycling in the State.

RATE OF WATER REUSE The most startling finding of the survey is that

water reclamation projects are being built at a rapid rate. Perhaps water reuse is not as difficult to accomplish as it is often portrayed to be. The survey results indicate that, over the past several years, great progress has been made in spite of the costs and other barriers. Current reus_e-has jumped from about 270,e AFY in 1987 to over 3 8 0 ; ~ _ - AFY-more &&I 40 percent inaease in less than five years. Agenaes that are most successful at water recyding have developed the necessary attitudes and expertise to continue inaeasing water reuse and to expand the envelope aggressively, projecting relatively rapid increases in the future in spite of a variety of hardships. If the attitudes and expertise of the successful agencies could be transferred to other agenaes, the statewide water recycling potential would certainly increase.

One hundred eleven agenaes participated in the survey, reporting 230 existing and planned projects at 313 reuse sites. The rapid rate of

discharge. The results of the survey indicate that the State's goall of achieving 700,000 aae-ft per year water redamation by the year 2000 and I surpassing one million aae-ft per year by the year 2010 is definitely within reach. In fact, the 2010 goal can be exceeded by over 30 percent if the responding agencies accomplish their own predictions.

The water recycling capital of the state is the area represented by Los Angeles and Orange counties. The aggressive rate of water reclamation and the sustained rapid increases projected into the fume for these counties must be aedited at least in part to the role of the Metropoiitan Water District of Southern California's Local Projects Program (providing significant finanaal subsidies for water recycling to local entities). Geographic and other factors favoring water reuse in these areas have been ated as partial explanations for their early prominence in this field.' Nonetheless, the lessons learned in these regions can be transferred to resolve the institubonal and other barriers holding back water reuse in other parts of the State. This illustrates a clear need for statewide technology transfer and uniform policy development. WateReuse must continue to play a major role in assuring that both of these needs are met.

Most of the growth in water reuse is expected to occur in the Los Angeles and Santa Ana regions. (Regions are defined as the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board regions, separated by major watershed boundaries.) The San Diego region also is expected to undergo significant growth in reclaimed water use over the next two decades, nearly txipliig its share of the statewide water reuse from the present four percent to an - "ultimate" 11 percent. The San Francisco Bay region also is projected to undergo significant increase in both water reuse volume and its relative share statewide (from the current 6 percent to nearly 11 percent.) The Central Valley and Colorado River Basin regions' growth in water reuse is projected to be modest. Central Coast region will experience a substantial jump in reuse in the 1993 to 1995 period with very little additional growth in future yean. Other regions (North Coast and Lahontan) project relatively slow growth in water reuse at this time. None of the nine regions project a decline in the rate of water recycling.

increase in water reclamation activity over the past five years is projected to continue through the CATEGORIES AND vear 2000 bv which time total reuse could exceed PURPOSES OF REUSE d'

one rnilliok~FY. Projection fy2010 is over 1.3 - All traditional uses of reclaimed water are million AFY.with an "ultimate" reuse potentid of expected to grow in absolute volume whiie a dose to 1.5 million AFY. Clearly, the word number of new and unusual uses (aggregated as a "ultimate" was not interpreted by most Miscellaneous category) develop and grow. None respondents to mean total recycling or zero of the uses is projected to decline in volume. The

The State's goals were enacted by the Legislature with the passage of the Water Recyding Act of 1991 (AB 673), Water Code Section 13577, Water Recycling Goal

relative proportions of the various categories of reuse will undergo significant change. Groundwater recharge currently accounts for nearly half the total volume of water reused in the State. This proportion will gradually dedine to about a third, as landscape irrigation grows from a mere 10 percent to almost a third of all reuse volume. Another major use of reclaimed water- agricultural irrigation-though expected to grow steadily, will decline in relative percent of total from 21 percent at present to 13 percent in the "ultimate" horizon. Other categories experiencing the greatest relative increase5 will be industrial uses and seawater intrusion barriers.

These changes in relative proportion reflect the inaeasing value of reclaimed water as a resource for direct utilization within the urban areas of origin.hor example, the dramatic inaease in landscape irrigation use of reclaimed water is indicative of a strong shift in attitude on water reuse.) hen asked for the "purpose" of project, most respondents (63 percent) cite water suppw as the sole puIpose, and only one percent mention disposal or pollution control as the only purpose of the project. Another 14 percent include wrder supply among a list of purposes.

INFLUENCES ON WATER REUSE

Survey respondents ranked the current ' statewide economic recession and local budgetary problems as the greatest impediments to implementing their water recycling projects. On the other hand, water shortage and the six-year drought were ranked as the factors most influential in motivating greater and faster development of water redamation projects. The overwhelming thrust of the survey findings is that water recycling continues to be highly successful in California in spite of the impediments--real or imagined.

An interesting finding of the survey is that most respondents rated public opinion as a motivating influence for water reuse project development. About 75 percent rated public opinion as having a "positive" or "somewhat positive" influence on project development. This is probably due to the increased familiarity that most Californians have gained-especially in recent years-with water reclamation projects and their unblemished safety record. Many respondents attribute positive inflyence to recent legislative mandates for use of reclaimed water for all non-potable uses-where available at acceptable quality and reasonable cost. Others decry the stricmess of regulatory agencies (and some local health authorities) in interpreting public health regulations, issuing permits and processing loan applications.

COSTS Survey respondents providing cost data

cumulatively expect to spend about $2,850,000,000 in treatment and distribution capital costs over the next two decades to build capacity . -. redaim about 830,000 AFY. This is a huge investment of resources and yet represents only a portion of the total projected water reuse costs. The implication of this commitment of resources is that water recycling is widely viewed as a proven, reliable, safe and economical locally controlled source of water supply. Viewed another -, way, three b i o n dollars is a huge commitment of resources at a time when all agenaes in California are feeling the disastrous effects of the ongoing recession. The need for financial assistance, affordable financing mechanisms and achieving economies of scale is dramatized in this single figure.

POTENTIAL FOR THE FUTURE

The future looks bright for water redamation, not only because of the numbers projected by the survey respondents, but also because of movements in the legislative, regulatory and other arenas. The Califiomia W m a t e r Reclamation Criteria (litle 22) are being revised to reflect actual practice and to respond to the need for more streamlined and uniform public health regulation. The proposed revised regulations are ex@ to name over 30 , new "allowed" uses of reclaimed water. The long- awaited groundwater recharge guidelines are expected to be included in this new version. The California Legislature also has been active in water reuse, expanding the envelope to allow mandated use of reclaimed water where available, and to specify several new uses of reclaimed water.

Another major event which will inaease water recyding potential in the future substantially is the recent formation of two state-wide potable reuse committees (one is officially co-sponsored by the Department of Health Services and the Department of Water Resources while the other is a subcommittee of the WateReuse Assodation's Regulations Committee). Possibly, the next time survey questionnaires are mailed out, a new category of reuse will be potable, through d c e water augmentation, river didarge or other acceptable routes.

INTRODUCTION SURVEY DESCRIPTION

SECTION I

T he WateReuse Association of California is committed to helping the state realize the untapped potential of water recycling. Its

Board of Directon directed the preparation and conduct of a s w e y that would reveal this potential, to the year 2010 and beyond. This

I I report presents the results of the survey,

conducted over a 12-month period, among agenaes active in the field of water recycling.

Obviously, this resource is underutilized because many of the agencies that could potentially reclaim wastewater currently have no plans to do so. (Many agenaes now engaged in water reuse did not have any reclamation plans two decades ago.) Therefore, any s w e y would be incapable of truly revealing the full potential that exists for water redamation.

One way to circumvent this inability to peer

-, into the future would be to consider the entire - four-m' 'on-plus aae-feet per year of wastewater A- efflue s the true ultimate potential for water

recycling in the state. How soon that potential will be realized is the question this and future sweys are attempting to answer. Thus, the results reported here represent only a partial response to the Association's need for an ultimate goal.

One of the early questions raised in the course of preparation of the survey instrument (questionnaire) was thedefinition of water reuse. Many in the water supply profession prefer to distinguish between that ~ e y which directly frees up fresh water and e a t which puts reclaimed water to a use y x c h otherwise would not occur. - -8

Examples of the latter type of use (some have dubbed it 'soft reus") are recreational impoundments and environmental enhancement. Rather than disallow such k e s from the total potential, +s suypey asked for all types of r - w = and reported the results directly.

1 The reader may choose to separate the projects

I !e$rted under the "envir~nrneq.t.~~ categoy of I uses which include all -=--. uses - that do no't?&61&ee I potable wat i demands, However, the increasing I i awareness of the environmental water 1 requirements dictates that this category of use be

regarded as a legitimate beneficial use of reclaimed I water. For this reason, the respondents were urged

to report any and all categories of water reuse planned for future implementation.

SECTION II PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY

Reclaimed water has been used as a non- potable water supply source in California - intentionally -for nearly a c e n d ~ e u s e has significantly increased in the past two decades in spite of impediments and will continue to expand, reflecting a growing awareness of the importance of water redamation in overall water resource management.

A s p of its missionto promote water +

recycling, the WateReuse Assodation of California conducted this survey t~_e~xplore themtentid for- water reuse in California over the next 20 ye= % Previous sweys were more interested in existing or shorter-term water reclamation. Thin s w e y updates water reclamation figures for the present and documents futuce potential beyond 2010.

Besides obtaining data on p l e e d water reuse development, other important information were also soliated. These included:

D Types and volumes of future reuse potential. O Major factors that influence success of

implementation of water reclamation projects. 0 Capital and operating costs of water

recycling projects. 0 Purpose of each project. In summary, data will be useful to legislators,

water reuse advocates, project finanaers, and water managers in planning future directions. The survey results are expected to help promote and encourage additional water recycling as a reasonable and economical means to extend available water resources. Another objective is to assist agenaes which might benefit from the professional services of the newly established WateReuse Finance Corporation through a compilation of relevant data.

Another purpose of this survey report is to - enable agencies to set realistic or aggressive goals and develop long-term strategies to better meet future water needs. The survey did not include an assessment of firm water supply which agenaes would then be committed to deliver at a certain time.

?California Munici~al Wastewater Reclamation in 1987, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Office of Water Recycling, June, 1990, p. 3. Note: The SWRCB projected a state was-r pa01 of - 3.4 to - 3.9 million acre-feet per year in 1987. For purposes here, a slight increase was used. 3Water Recycling 2000, p. 4.

Figure 1. PROJECTED WATER RECYCLING IN CALIFORNIA

Prior Reuse lm Incremental Reuse . Cumulative Total

Figure 2. TOTAL POTENTIAL WATER REUSE IN CALIFORNIA BY USER CATEGORY

500,000

Landscape Industrial Agricultural Groundwater Seawater Environmental Miscellaneous Recharge Intrusion Uses Uses

Barrier

Pre-1993 " 1995 2000 2010 "Ultimate"

Figure 3. TOTAL POTENTIAL WATER REUSE IN CALIFORNIA BY REGION

Region 1, Region 2, Region 3, Rcgion 4, Region 5, Region 6, Region 7, Region 8, Region 9, Nortll San Central Los Central Lahontan Colo,pdo Santa San Coast Francisco Coast Angeles Valley River Ana Diego

Bay Basin

Pre-1993 1995 2000 2010 "Ultimate"

NUMBERS OF PARTICIPANTS, PROJECTS AND SITES A total of 230 projects were reported by the 111 respondents. Total reclaimed water potential by

region and reuse type by years, water agencies and projects is presented in Appendices D. (A map of the State of California divided into the nine Regional Water Quality Control Board regions is shown in Appendix C.)

The number of respondents and reuse sites by region is summarized in Table 1. The number of reuse sites, by type, is shown in Table 2.

Table 1. NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONSES RECEIVED AND PROJECTS REPORTED

Table 2. Number of Total Reuse Sites by Category.

Type of Reuse Total Sites@) Percent of Total

- b

Landscape 150 Industrial 29 Agricultural 48 Groundwater Recharge 36 Seawater Intrusion Bamer 6 Environmental 16 Others@) 28

Region*

1. North Coast

2. San Francisco Bay

3. Central Coast

4. Los Angeles

5. central valley

6. ' Lahontan

7. Colorado River Basin

8. Santa Ana

9. San Diego

Totals: <

TOTAL 3 13 100 (a). One project can have many sites. (b). Other reuse types include: toilet flushing, dust-suppression, cooling, and uses unclassified by respondent.

Number of Respondents

4

18

7

20

17

3

3

13

Number of Projects

9

35

12

53

17

t

4

43

I 26 55

111 230

The number of reuse sites, by region, is depicted in Table 3.

Table 3. Number of Total Reuse Sites by Region.

Region Name of Region Total Sites Percent of Total

1 North Coast 11 3 2 San Francisco Bay 49 16 3 Central Coast 15 5 4 Los Angeles 85 27 - 5 Central Valley 2 1 7 6 Lahontan 3 1 7 Colorado River Basin 6 2 8 Santa Ana 43 14 - 9 San Diego 80 25 -

TOTAL 3 13 100 - EXISTING WATER REUSE

In 1993, at least 383,752 AFY was being reclaimed in califor&. Compared to the June, 1990, SWRCB study of the 1987 reuse, there has been an increase of 117,193 AFY, ap4% rise over the last five-year period. Incremental reuse for each future horizon can be obtained by subtracting the corresponding figure from the previous horizon. Survey respondents actually 7

reported incremental reuse volumes.

Water Reuse by Category Cumulative total water reuse volumes by type

of use are shown in Table 4. Figure 4 shows relative distribution of existing water reuse quantities by reuse categories.

Landscape Irrigation All regions reported this reuse type. Regions 2,4,8, and 9 reported the most landscape irrigation reuse sites, 134 out of 150. These are also the most densely populated regions.

Ind&*aZ Use Industrial reuse has the least quantity for the current time period, a mere 2 percent. Most current industrial reuse is found in Regions 2,4 and 9, which are also where most of the largest urban areas are located. Regions 1, 3, 6, and 7 have no reported industrial use. This is expected since these areas are nual. Regions 5 and 8 have minimal industrial reuse.

AgridturaZ Use Regions 5 and 9 reported the greatest volumes of agricultural reuse. There were no agricultural uses reported in Region 7 and only one in Region 6. Agricultural use of reclaimed water appears to be the second largest of all existing users. As the state has a huge

agricultural base, this is important not only to the state and nation, but to some other parts of the world as well, both economically and in terms of food supply. There is a large potential market for additional use of reclaimed water for agriculture, displacing potable water. The agricultural industry grows a wide assortment of crops which can be imgated with reclaimed water. Some examples of crops where reclaimed water is being used are: alfalfa, apple, avocado, orange, pistachio, plum, barley, cotton, grape, and wheat.

Groundwater Rechmge This reuse type accounts for the highest rate (48 percent of the total) based upon swey data supplied by participants. It is also the most common reuse in Central and Southern California. Over the decades most aquifers have been over-pumped, leading to deeper pumps, higher pumping costs and seawater intrusion. To help improve conditions for the future use of redaimed water for groundwater, many water agencies have adopted the strategy of recharging these important reservoirs. Recharge is strongest in Regions 3,4,5, 8, and 9. There is very little recharge in Regions 2 and 7 and none in Regions 1 and 6. The three major rechargers are in Region 4 (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and the Water Replenishment District of Southern California) and 8 (Orange County Water District). Nearly 60 percent of the total volume of water used for this purpose comes from the Orange County Water District at its Santa Ana River Project Another 27 percent of the total comes from the Montebello Forebay Project of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County and the Water Replenishment District.

Table 4. PRESENT WATER REUSE BY CATEGORY

Figure 4. EXISTING WATER RE Groundwater Recharge

USE BY CATEGORY 1 . w

Environmental Uses 8%

Agricultural 21%

Seawater Intrusi~

Seawater Intrusion B d e r Injection of reclaimed water at seawater intrusion barriers was one of the least in terms of volume, 7,000 AM. Only one reuse project was reported from Region 8. (An additional five projects in Regions 4 and 8 will be discussed in the next section on future reuse.) Due to over-pumping of coastal aquifers, seawater is moving inland and contaminating them. Reclaimed water is a safe, reliable and economical alternative to potable water to inject into these coastal aquifers, helping to stabilize and eventually reverse the intrusion of salt water.

Environmental Enhancement This type of reuse was reported in all regions except 6 and 7. Regions 2 and 4 reported the largest quantities, 90 percent of the total. The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Union Sanitary Disirict (Fremont, Newark and Union City) are using redaimed water to sustain a recreational lake and a marsh, respectively, in these regions.

Others Twenty-eight reuse sites were reported with either specific uses such as toilet flushing, snow making or fire protection, or without an identified use (11 cases). Due to the inland locations of Regions 8 and 9, these reuse sites are most likely agricultural and landscape.

Water Reuse by Region - . - -. - - - .- - . - .-- Table 5 and Figure 5 show current quantities

and percentages of reuse by region. Region 1 - Nmth Coast Only two water

agencies responded with data. The agency with the largest use of reclaimed water in Region 1 is the City of Santa Rosa, with nearly 86 percent of the total.

Region 2 - Sun Francisco Bay Seventeen agenaes provided data in Region 2. The three largest suppliers at the present, as reported in the survey, are the East Bay Municipal Utility District, City of Petaluma and Union Sanitary District. The latter has a large (11,200 AFY) environmental reuse project

R@m 3 - CentraZ Coast Seven agenaes responded with data. The largest supplier in this region is the Santa Barbara County Water District. It reports about 67 percent of the total volume.

Region 4 - Los Angela Nineteen agencies reported reuse volumes for Region 4. This region has the second highest total, 8931 7 AFY, amounting to about 23 percent of all regions combined. The City of b s Angeles and the County Sanitation Districts of b s Angeles County report the largest uses for environmental enhancement and groundwater recharge, respectively.

Table 5. PRESENT WATER REUSE BY REGION

I Region 1 capacity 1 T-4- I

TOtnl Percent of I 11. North Coast 1 14,1921 4% I

14. Los Angeles - I 89,2171 23% . I 2. San Francisco Bay

3.. Central Coast

45. central vdev I 66,7351 17%- 1

21,752

12,415

6%

3%

-6.

9. San Diego

Totals:

Lahontan

7. Colorado River Basin

8. Santa Ana

16,722

383,752

4,000

3 W

155,471

4%

100%

1%

1%

41%

( Figure 5. EXISTING WATER REUSE BY REGION

Colorado River Basin

1% 6. Lahontan A

8. Santa Ana 41%

[ 2. SanFmcisco Bay 6%

3. Central Coast

4. Los Angeles 23%

Region 5 - Central Vanq, Fourteen agencies returned data. Two-thirds of the total comes from Kern County Water Agency. More than two-thirds is used for agriculture which would be expected since the.region hosts a majority of the state's agriculture industry.

Region 6 - Lahontmr Only two water agenaes in Region 6 responded with data to the survey. At present, all the reclaimed water in the Lahontan Region is used for agriculture.

Region 7 - Colorado River Basin Only two 'agencies responded with data. Over 77 percent of the total use is for landscape irrigation. The remainder is designated for groundwater recharge.

Region 8 - Santa Ana Twelve agencies reported data for Region 8. This region has the greatest volume of redaimed water use (155,471 AFY) because of the large Santa Ana River Groundwater Recharge Project of the Orange County Water District, representing 70 percent of the total for the region.

Region 9 - San Diego Twenty-four agencies provided data. Over 40 percent of the total present reuse is for landscape irrigation. Seventeen percent is for industrial use, and 37 percent is miscellaneous, which may include agriculture and landscape uses.

FUTURE REUSE POTENTlAL A summary of cumulative future water reuse

potential is presented by categories and regions in Table 6. Data have been resorted and are presented separately, categories and regions, in Tables 7 and 8. Incremental reuse for each future horizon can be obtained by subtracting the co~~esponding figure from the previous horizon. Survey respondents actually reported incremental reuse volumes.

The "Ultimate" category of water redamation is the total of all previous years plus any additional reclamation beyond the year 2010. In few cases, agenaes have plans for post-2010 water reclamation; however, there is difficulty for most agencies to forecast so far in advance. Many events can alter planned reuse. Thus, interpretation of the "Ultimate" category must carry necessary caution. It should not be viewed as the final upper limit of future potential for water reclamation.

As can be seen from the totals at the end of Tables 7 and 8,59 percent increase in additional on-line water reclamation is expected between the years 1995 and 2000. The 2010 and "Ultimate" projections represent inaemental jumps of only 13 percent or less.

Table 6. WATER REUSE CATEGORIES BY REGIONS

(continued)

Region 5 . Central Valley-Cumulative Reuse By Category of Use

c a w w Y Fkhhg 1995 2000 2010 "Ultimate"

Reme (AFY) (AFY) (AEY) (AEY) (AFY) Agriculture 53,169 66,643 74,324 77,73 8 82,73 8 Environmental 1,456 1,456 1,656 1,656 1,656 Industrial 100 715 1,330 1,330 1,430 Landscape 78 75 8 903 1,370 1,420 Groundwater Recharge 11,932 13,53 1 15,363 17,090 21,522 Miscellaneous 0 895 895 895 895 Total 66,735 83,998 94,471 100,079 109,661 .

Region 6. Lahontan-Cumulative Reuse By Category of Use - - - - Existing 1995 2000 2010 "Ultimate"

Category Reuse ( h

I Agriculture Landscape Snow-making 0 698 808 1,088 1,120 Total 4,0043 6,198 6,808 7,088 9,120

Region 7. Colorado River Basin-Cumulative Reuse By Category of Use b

Category Existing 1995 2000 2010 "U1tima.te"

lxeuse (AEY) (AEY) (AEY) (An? (AEY) . Landscape 2,52 1 14,742 20,742 28,742 33,743 Snow-making 727 2,719 5,219 8,219 9,179 Total 3,248 1 7,461 25,961 36,961 42,922

Region 8. Santa Ana-Cumulative Reuse By Category of Use

Category Existing 1995 2000 2010 "Ultimate"

(AEY) Agriculture 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,000 Barrier 7,000 14,000 3 1,000 36,000 36,000 Environmental 775 775 775 775 550 Industrial 0 0 430 1,076 1,076 Landscape 15,841 26,715 5 1,094 85,304 101,934 Groundwater Recharge 1 10,000 1 18,430 214,235 257,041 291,041 Miscellaneous 16,855 22,503 44,804 57,078 63,578 Total 155.471 187.423 347.338 442374 495.179

Table 6. WATER REUSE CATEGORIES BY REGIONS

(continued)

Region 9. San Diego-Cumulative Reuse By Category of Use Existing 1995 2000 2010 Vkimate"

category Reuse (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Agriculture 672 4,366 13,474 22,709 22,165 Environmental 0 36 2,736 2,736 3,736 Industrial 2,895 2,927 3,594 5,492 5,993 Landscape 6,873 ' 20,78.1 55,425 -~ 84,698 - 102,968 Groundwater Recharge 0 710 11,710 15,740 24,740 I Miscellaneous 6,282 8,032 8,032 8,345 8,345 Total 16,722 36,852 94,971 139,720 167,947

I L

Table 7. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL WATER RECYCLING TOTAL BY CATEGORY OF REUSE

I

Category of Reuse 1995 2000 . 2010 "Ultimate" Landscape 110,098 258,557 384,036 448,680

Industrial 40,862 80,934 101,683 136,412

Agricultural 131,582 164,201 196,236 197,698

Groundwater Recharge 217,428 372,865 416,128 492,451

Seawater Intrusion Barrier 19,600 49,000 67,000 82,000

Environmental Uses 36,205 , 47,058 47,160 47,335

Miscellaneous Uses 38,279 67,959 85,776 92,200

Totals: 651,054 1,040,574 1,328,619 1,496,779 3

STATE GRAND TOTALS: 3

_1 - - C 383,752 654,054 1,040,574 1,328,619 1,496,779

Figure 6. FUTURE TRENDS IN WATER REUSE POTENTIAL BY CATEGORY OF

USE

Grounduater RethargP Industrial

Emimnmcnlal Usa 6%

Sca\nra l ntiusion Bania

3%

2010 "ULTIMATE"

Gmundnatn Raharge 33% Gmnndwala Rdm%c

34%

1 5% Bamu 13% 5% 5%

Table 8. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL WATER RECYCLING TOTAL BY REGION

b

Region 1995 2000 2010 "Ultimate"

1. North Coast 15,592 23,942 23,942 23,942

2. San Francisco Bay 43,919 1 0 4 W 150,719 148,269

3. Central Coast 35,115 43,315 48,715 47,550

4. Los Angeles 227,496 298,922 379,121 452,189

5. Central Valley 83,998 94,471 100,079 109,661

6. Lahontan . 6,198 6,808 7,088 9,120

7. Colorado River Basin 17,461 25,961 36,961 42,922

8. Santa Ana 187,423 347,338 442,274 495,179

9. San Diego 36,852 94,971 139,720 167,947

TO*: 654,OM 1,040,574 1,328,619 ,1,496,779

Probability of Implementation S w e y respondents filled in the column

soliating percentage of probability of project implementation. Some, not all, reported probabilities from 40 percent up to 100 percent for implementation of their projects, and a few in the 5 to 10 percent range. Generally most reported probabilities were above 75 percent. The survey instrument did not provide an opportunity for respondents to distinguish probability of 4 implementation for various time horizons.

Future Water Reuse by Category Table 7 and Figure 6 show future water

reclamation by reuse category. The largest water recycling potential will continue to be in landscape, agriculture and groundwater recharge. The percentage of landscape and groundwater recharge will rise the fastest. As a percentage, agricultural use will decliie, and industrial and seawater intrusion bamer use will rise relatively slowly.

Landscape Irrigation Landscape irrigation accounts for the most number of existing and planned reuse projects and sites. Large increases in this category will occur in each survey period. 'From the present to 1995, there will be an almost 200 percent rise; the next period will see an 87 percent inaease; there will be a 50 percent increase by 2010. These percentages illustrate steady continuing inaeases of reclaimed water use in this category.

IndusMal Use The Los Angeles Region (4) will contribute almost exclusively to the large increase by 1995, which will be 520 percent over the present. By the year 2000, the San Franasco Bay Region (2), in addition to Region 4, will contribute a significant portion of the almost 100 percent increase over 1995. As reported, after the year 2200, another large rise in demand will occur. Thus, industrial reuse will steadily and continually increase over the next two decades.

AgridfuraZ Use The largest jump in this reuse type will come between the present and 1995 when an additional 51,977 AFY will be added, a 65 percent inaease over 1993. The additional capacity will be delivered in Regions 3, 4 and 5s. Subsequent increases are much smaller, about 20 percent each. In Monterey County, plans call for irrigation of lettuce, cauliflower, broccoli, celery, and artichokes, on a large scale, with reclaimed water.

Groundwater Recharge Substantial increases will occur throughout the survey periods. The largest rise will take place between 1995 and 2000, about 50 percent. This change is due to the completion of recharge capability at the Orange County Water District in which the Santa Ana River Project will be expanded by an estimated 90,000 AFY. Region 4 will also have important additions, notably the City of Los Angeles' East

Valley project. Groundwater recharge with redaimed water will climb steadily and continuously through the next 20 years. Seawater In-on Barrter From the

present to 1995, there will be a 180 percent rise in use of reclaimed water to combat seawater intrusion. During the 1995-2000 period, there will be an inaease of 150 percent The dramatic increases will come from three new projects in Region 4 and two in Region 8. By the end of the s w e y period, Region 4 will surpass Region 8 in total quantity.

E&onmentaZ Enhancement There will be no major inaease or decrease for this reuse type. The largest jump will take place between 1995 and 2000,30 percent. Regions 1,3,4, and 9 will experience the most significant changes.

Others The largest inaease will occur between 1995 and 2000 when there is expected to be a 77 percent rise in this illdefined catego y. Almost all the increase is in Region 8 and some in Region 2. Eleven of these reuse sites were unclassified and most likely are for agriculture and landscape.

Future Water Reuse by Region Table 8 and Figure 7 show future water reuse

projections by region. Note that the major population centers have the most on-line and planned water reclamation facilities. Some regions will have less reuse in the year 2010 than in 1993! As reported by some water agenaes, this is believed to be due to the decline in water demands for agriculture and environmental enhancement as land is converted for urban uses.

Region 1 - North Coast The only substantial increase will occur by the year 2000, a 53 percent rise, when the City of Santa Rosa will add over 8,000 AFK for agricultural, environmental (68 percent of this increase) and landscape reuse.

Region 2 - Sun Frandsco Bay The region will double its use of redaimed water by 1995. Another 138 percent increase will occur by 2000.

R@on 3 - Cenfral Coast This region will achieve a 182 percent inaease in reclaimed water use by 1995. The major contributor, 90 percent, will be an agricultural project by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency for use of 20,000 AFY of reclaimed water on raw-eaten food crops.

Region 4 - Los AngeZes By 1995, this region expects to add 155 percent more water redamation capability. The major' contributors are industrial, landscape and groundwater recharge uses. The next two periods will see 25 to 30 percent rise. Besides the above mentioned uses, seawater intrusion barrier will become more prominent. "Ultimately," this region will have the second highest reuse total, 452,189 AFY.

Region 5 - Central Vaney There are no

Figure 7. FUTJJRE TRENDS IN WATER REUSE POTENTIAL BY REGION

7. Colorado h Basin 8. SantaAoa

7. Colorado Rivn Basin

2. San Francis

8. Sanm Ana 34%

7. Colorado Rivcr

5. Ccntral Val1

. SanFrancisoBay 11%

"ULTIMATE"

8. Sanla Ana 33%

3. CentralCoasr 4. Los Angels 4%

28%

dramatic inaeases in reuse during the survey time frame. Reuse will rise from 66,735 AFY at present to "ultimately" 110,000 AFY. The largest increase will be by 1995 when an estimated 25 percent rise will occur.

Region 6 - Lahontan There are no major increases antiapated during the survey time frame. Additional reclaimed water will be used for landscape irrigation and one unique use - snow- making by the Running Springs Water District in the San Bemardino Mountains. This reclamation project will direct redaimed water to a reservoir where it will be stored for production of snow during the winter season. Snow melt will be collected and directed back into the reservoir.

Region 7 - Colorado River Basin The most impressive inaease will occur in the near term. This is forecast to be a 437 percent inaease when additional capacity for landscape irrigation will come on-line. The next two time periods will see increases of 48 and 42 percent.

R&on 8 - Santa Ana The largest increases, 85 percent, will be between 1996 and 2000. Landscape irrigation (15 percent of the total increase), groundwater recharge (60 percent of total, from the Santa Ana River Project), seawater intrusion bamer (10 percent of total), and miscellaneous (13 percent of total) are the most important contributors. The latter may include many landscape uses as no specific use type was given in the respondents' data. In the time period 2001 to 2010, there will be a 27 percent rise, and the same uses will be involved. "Ultimately," this region will have the largest statewide quantity of reclaimed water in use, 495,179 AFY or 33 percent of the state's total reuse.

Region 9 - Sun Diego Relatively large increases of 120, 157 and 47 percent will come about in 1995,2000 and 2010, respectively. Landscape irrigation and groundwater recharge will be the two major uses that will be responsible for these increases.

EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON WATER RECLAMATION

Survey participants were asked to rate factors that determine whether water reclamation projects were implemented or not. A summary of the responses is presented graphically in Figures 8 through 15. As can be seen, drought and long- term shortages drew the highest responses and the most positive scores. Budget problems and the economic recession were rated the most negative influences for water reclamation. Public opinion and political pressure were reported by the respondents to have somewhat positive impacts on water recycling implementation. Regulatory mandates and other factors were mixed, but were

on the overall positive side. Table 9 lists "other" influences as specified by some of the respondents.

C'PURPOSER OF WATER REUSE PROJECTS

Table 10 shows the distribution of "purpose" of water reuse projects. The survey reveals that about 63 percent of respondents rated water supply as the leading reason for their projects. Another three percent rated water supply as part of the reason. Pollution abatement/control received one percent with another three percent indicating pollution abatement as the part of the purpose of the project. Water supply and pollution abatementlcontrol overlapped in responses of another 14 percent of the respondents. Another six percent answered with other reasons, including multi-purpose (which may include water supply and pollution control) and 11 percent failed to respond. (Appendix E shows the distribution of purposes as reported by responding agenaes.)

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES The survey asked respondents to include the

capital treatment and distribution costs of planned water redamation projects. Often the costs were lump sums (treatment plus distribution in one figure) or were given as cost per acre-foot. Based upon dollar figures supplied by water purveyors, approximately $840 million will be spent on treatment facilities and 31.1 biion on distribution infrastruct&e to produce and distribute about 0.6 MAN additional capacity. These totals were obtained using the most probable projections of water reke given by agenaes which gave cost figures only. Implementation periods corresponding to these cost figures range from 1995 in most to 2010 in some cases

Of the total number of respondents, 51 percent ~rovided usable fucal information. In most cases it was unclear whether the given costs corresponded with one or more phases of project development. Table 11 gives a breakdown by region where reclamation dollars will be spent. Appendix F contains the detailed data on costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL USE OF

Existing and projected uses of reclaimed water include deliveries that serve benefiaal uses including those that replace the need for additional potable water supplies and uses that would not, under most arcumstances, have received fresh water if reclaimed water were not available. Some uses such as stream or river enhancement involve reuse downstream or percolation for incidental groundwater recharge.

I Figure 8. BUDGETARY PROBLEMS IMPACTING WATER RECYCLING

3, Very Positive

2, Positive

, Somewl~at Positive

0, No Influence

Somewhat Negative

-2, Negative

-3, Very Negative

0% 5% 10% . 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS DECLARING LEVEL OF INFLUENCE

Figure 9. ECONOMIC RECESSION IMPACTING WATER RECYCLING

3, Very Positive

2, Positive

1, Somewhat Positive

0, No Influence

-1, Somewhat Ngative

-2, Negative

-3, Very Negative

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%


Figure 10. DROUGHT IMPACTING WATER RECYCLING

3, Very Positive

2, Positive


0, No Influence


-2, Negative

-3, Very Negative

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%


Figure 11.' WATER SHORTAGE IMPACTING WATER RECYCLING

3, Very Positive

. 2, Positive

Somewhat Positive

0, No Influence

Somewhat Ngative

-2, Negative

-3, Very Negative

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS DECLARING LEVEL.OF INFLUENCE

Figure' 12. REGULATORY MANDATES IMPACTING WATER RECYCLING

3, Very Positive

2, Positive


0 , No Influence

~1, Somewhat Ngative

-2, Negative

-3, Very Negative

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%


Figure 13. PUBLIC OPINION IMPACTING WATER RECYCLING

3, Very Positive

2, Positive

Somewhat Positive

0, No Influence

Somewhat Ngative

-2, Negative

-3, Very Negative

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


Figure 14. POLITICAL PRESSURES IMPACTING WATER RECYCLING

3, Very Positive

2, Positive


0, No Influence


-2, Negative

-3, Very Negative

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%


Figure 15. OTHER INFLUENCES IMPACTING WATER RECYCLING

3, Very Positive

2, Positive


0, No Influence


-2, Negative

-3, Very Negative

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%


Table 9. LIST OF OTHER INFLUENCES AND THEIR IMPACT ON WATER REUSE

Impact

3

3

2

2

Other Influences As Identified By Individual Respondents

Opportunities Provided via Developer

Formation of New Agency

Increasing Imported Water Costs

Lack of Potable Water

2

2

2

1

-1

- 1

- 1

-1

-1

-1

- 1

-2

-3

New Golf Course

User Demand

Availabiity

L.okg-~enn Water Supply

Development Approval

Building Moratorium

Jurisdictional Issues

Closure of Fort Ord

Staff Availabiiity

Water Quality

Salt Intrusion

Anti-Growth Faction

Regional Board Staff

Table 10. "PURPOSE" OF WATER REUSE PROJECTS

"Purpose"

Water supply only

Water supply plus other uses except pollution control

Pollution abatement/control

Pollution control plus other uses except water supply

Combined water supply and pollution control

"Other" and "multi-purpose"

No response

TOTALS:

Number of Agencies

70

3

1

3

15

7

12

111

Percent of Agencies

63%

3%

1%

3%

14%

6%

11%

100%

Volume (AFY)

921,825

298,000

570

59,137

109,605

39,221

68,421

1,496,779

Percent of Total

volume

62%

20%

0%

4%

7%

3%

5%

100%

(Figures available only for agencies responding to specific questions.)

Probable*

Region Water Reuse Capital Costs Capacity

(AFY)

Treatment Distribution (millions of dollars)

1. North Coast NA NA NA

2. San Francisco Bay $199.65 $301.76 93,754

3. Central Coast $41.00 $63.30 33,500

4. Los Angeles $288.32 $415.30 333,465

5. Central Valley $51.79 $2.45 20,420

6. Lahontan NA NA NA

7. Colorado River Basin $10.25 $4.00 8,684 / 8. Santa Ana $127.94 SlOl.37 32,158

9. San Diego $121.67 $278.97 78,009

TOTALS: $840.62 $1,167.15 599,990

* In many cases, the associated volume of water reuse capacity was estimated fiom the respondents' data, using subjective assumptions and comparisons.

NA = Not Available

For the purposes of the current survey, all uses, as which will be significant in some communities. reported by the respondents, are presented in this The public is willing to use more reclaimed report without consideration as to which might water if it is presented with accurate information displace an existing volume of fresh water use. early in the planning stages. Potentially,

industrial uses, residential landscaping and most other non-potable demands for water can be met with reclaimed water. With criteria under development at this writing, potable reuse might Fuf Prospects for significantly change the picture of future water

Water Recycling reuse. A special state committee sponsored by the State Department of Health Services and the

Section IV Department of Water Resources is working toward assessment of feasibility of potable reuse. The state committee is expected to report to the respective ~ e ~ a r t m e n t s over the next two to three

P opulation growth, increasing demand for ye=. Potable reuse could take one of two forms: higher quality water and uncertainty about introduction to surface reservoir or a direct linkage developed sources of water supply and their to the Potable water System.

future reliability are now widely recognized. Government agenaes and water suppliers increasingly adopt policies based on the premise that a reliable water supply comes from a multipliaty of resources, including water reclamation. It has been successfully demonstrated by several agencies that this water supply can be readily, safely and economically reused. There are no technical impediments to water recycling. Systems to treat wastewater to various qualities required for any reuse have been on the market and in successful use for decades. Potable reuse is on the horizon. Probably the next survey of water reclamation will report this category of reuse for the first time in California.

WATER RECLAMATION AS A WATER RESOURCE

A significant amount of water will be redaimed over the next two decades; however, this will remain a small part of the total available wastewater resource. Based upon figures of total statewide muniapal wastewaterp only about 13 percent is reused. If the survey projections are realized in 1995,23 percent of the total wastewater could be-reclaimed, increasing to 28 percent in 2000,36 percent in 2010, and "ultimately," 52 petcent. These figures do not take into account an inaease in municipal wastewater due to population growth.5

There is no shortage of demand for reclaimed water. Besides irrigation uses, existing and planned groundwater recharge and seawater intrusion barriers are large users of water and suitable for conversion to recycled water. These demands can be met with non-potable water supplies, leaving finite potable supplies for drinking, cooking, cleaning, manufacturing, environmental, and other essential purposes.

Future uses of reclaimed water for irrigation of residential landscaping will open new markets

IMPEDIMENTS TO WATER RECLAMATION

The major impediment reported by most respondents to water recycling is the combination of economic recession and local budgetary problems. Like new potable water projects, water reclamation projects require additional funding. Funding is currently highly problematic at all levels of government because of the economic recession gripping the country, and affecting California in particular. Promoting and implementing greater water conservation and water use efficiency strategies will reduce the overall water demand. This should reduce the total costs of additional supplies. Whether there is a recession or not, as long as California's population continues to grow along with environmental demands (e.g. adequate water to the Delta, replenishment of overdrafted aquifers and supply to seawater intrusion barriers), more water will be needed. The water supply industry will view reclaimed water as another source of supply, to be used efficiently wherever it is available.

WATER RECLAMATION POTENTIAL ELSEWHERE

California has a large number of water reclamation projects on-line and in various planning stages. This is an important accomplishment. However, there is much more wastewater remaining to be reclaimed to meet the state's needs for economic growth and environmental protection. Similar environmental and population needs must be met in other dry regjons of the world.

.4Each Regional Water Quality Board region was contacted to request the most recent average dry weather flow of municipal wastewater. The results are as follows: Region 1 - 40,656 AFI; Region 2 - 604,800 AFY; Region 3 - 98,705 AFY; Region 4 - 784,000 AFI; Region 5 - 501,849 AFY; Region 6 - 34,608 AFY; Region 7 - 48,286 AFY; Region 8 - 486,000 AFY; and Region 9 - 267,120 AFY. This total equals 287 MAN. sWie technically not valid, a constant wastewater volume might better reflect the effects of water conservation on present and future wastewater flow quantities.

Israel Whereas California reclaims about 13 percent Conclusion

of its wastewater resources, Israel currenay reuses about 70 percent of its wastewater, and has plans to inaease this to 80 percent by the turn of the Section V

Arizona In Arizona, 66,500 AFY is redaimed out of

191,000 AFY; this represents 35 percent of the state's wastewater. Reclaimed water is used in agriculture, groundwater recharge, industrial processing, and landscape irrigation. Water reclamation will increase to 55 percent by 1996 when the cities of Phoenix and Tucson add increased water recycling capaaties. The City of Phoenix has further expansion planned starting in 2000 (up to 15,000 AFY additional reuse by 2015). At present, about 40 percent of its effluent is reclaimed. This is expected to inaease to 80 percent by 2015. Many of the smaller cities in Arizona have achieved complete reclamation of their wastewater.

Florida In Florida, 30 percent or 324,800 AFY is being

reclaimed out of about 1.06 million AFY.9Jo About 123,000 A N is used for public landscape (i-e. parks and golf courses), 9 7,000 AFY for agriculture, 44,800 AFY for groundwater recharge, 24,600 AFY for environmental enhancement, and 19,000 AFY for industrial purposes. In 1986, the state identified 118 facilities with beneficial reuse. Four years later, 199 reuse facilities were contained in the state's water reuse inventory of 1990. By 1992, there were almost 300 reuse projects.

Nevada The State of Nevada reclaims about 87 percent

of its wastewater for agricultural and landscape irrigation, environmental enhancement and industrial uses.1 In 1990, over 147,000 AF were reclaimed from a resource pool of 170,500 AF.

SURPASSING THE STATE'S GOAL

One conclusion of this survey is that the state's legislated goal of accomplishing one million aae- feet of water recyding by the year 2010 is well within the realm of possibility. Local water and sewerage agencies have set their sights high enough to achieve the state's collective goal. Local agencies are in effect saying that, in aggregate, the state will easily exceed its established goals. The legislature can now assist / local agencies with removal of the financing constraints so that the impetus gained during the six-year drought will not be lost Examples of legislative assistance include funding through water reclamation bonds, reclaimed water use mandates and a statewide ban on salt discharges to sewer systems. It can also review and revise - upwards - the existing goals so as to stimulate additional planning and implementation of water recycling projects.

ECONOMIC BENEFIT As mentioned earlier, at least $2 billion could

be spent over the next 25 years on construction of water reclamation capital facilities. This is a conservative figure as many agencies did not provide cost data in a usable format. This is a substantial financial investment.

The cost for a new acre-foot of fresh potable water in Southern California can exceed $800, depending on treatment requirements and distance from the source.12.13 By comparison, most types of water reclamation cost much less than $750/AF. Additionally, the need for environmental mitigation assodated with

@State Compmller Report: The Water Quantity Crisis," Israel Environment Bulletin, No. 4(2), 1991, pp. 411. While this high rate of reclamation is laudable, it has been reported that much of the wastewater is reused in Israel without adequate matment Though it can be used for many agricultural purposes, there has been contamination of groundwater with industrial and agricultural chemicals. Through the legal system, local Israell environmental groups are forcing municipalities to comply with wastewater treatment laws. The City of Elat recently was forced to comply with laws, and will soon divert wastewater for reclamation and reuse in agriculture. Econet Israel News, 8(1), January-March, 1993, p. 3. Qwelve cities were contacted in the May, 1993, to compile data: Casa Grande, Flagstaff, Holbrook, Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Payson, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Wickenberg, Winslow, and Yuma. Wastewater effluent from Yuma was not included in the calculations, estimated to be on the order of 50,000 AFY; no reclamation occurs in this city. Kingman has indirect reuse (65 percent of effluent) via environmental enhancement and groundwater recharge; the other 35 percent evapofiltes. Many of the cities have plans for expansion of water reclamation. 9Personal communication with David York, Florida Water Reuse Coordinator, State Department of Environmental Regulations, May 5,1993. 1°J-B. Florida, Florida De-ent of Environmental Regulation, 1992. llData supplied by the Division of Water Planning, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Mr. Ret Jesse, May 25,1993. The data is based upon 1990 wastewater discharges.

traditional water supply development, is virtually nonexistent in water recycling projects. In fact, environmental enhancements are observed as less pollutant loading is placed in the environment. Economically, and environmentally, water recle~ation is the right choice. If the en\- . ..;nmental benefits and prevention of poliudon of receivicg waters are credited properly to water reclamation, there is no question about its feasibility and economic advantages.

CLOSING THE STATE'S WATER SUPPLY GAP

The State Department of Water Resources predicts a shortfall of 2.2 to 6 2 million A N by the year 2020.14 Though water reclamation alone cannot close this gap completely, it can reduce it substantially. This is especially true in the larger urban areas which import water over long distances. Achieving total water reclamation may not be realistic now, but setting a goal of 75 percent water reclamation 6.e. at least 2.2 million AFY) can bring the state to the low end of the shortage bracket. Any solution to the water supply shortfall will require a combination of transfers and water use effiaenaes, but inevitably it include water recycling.

Appendices

Section VI Appendix A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Appendix B LIST OF RESPONDENTS

Appendix C CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALlTY CONTROL BOARD REGIONS

Appendix D PROJECTIONS OF WATER RECYCLING CAPACITY BY REGION

Appendix E LIST OF RESPONDENTS AND "PURPOSE" OF PROJECTS

Appendix F CAPITAL COSTS BY RESPONDENTS

Appendix G OTHER STUDIES

Appendix H SURVEY RESPONSES & DATA VALIDITY

I l2"Reclaimed Water is Cost-Effective Now," OWR News. NO. 3(1), Aprii, 1992, p. 5. IsDavid Richard, T. Asano, and G. Tchoanoglous, The Cost of Wastewater Reclamation in California, University of I California, Davis, CA, November, 1992, p. 7-1.

I I4Peaonal communication with Naser Biteni, DWR, Division of Planning, update to Draft of Bulletion 160-93, California's Water Needs, the year 2020, May 12, 1993.

Survey Questionnaire

Appendix A

A S S O C I A T I O N O F C A L I F O R N I A

September 20, 1993

mail merge {Agency General Manager) {Address) {City,. State, Zip)

SUBJECT. 1992 SURVEY OF STATE WATER RECYCLING POTENTIAL

Dear { 1

As part of its mission to promote water recycling, the Board of Directors of the WateReuse Association of California has decided to conduct a survey to explore the most recent potential for water reuse in California over the next 20 years. In addition, it is hoped to obtain an estimate of the deliery of projects completed to date. The survey data will assist WateReuse to disseminate information regarding all types of proposed water reclamation projects and projected reclaimed water supplies. This information is vital to legislators, water reuse advocates, and those planning water reuse knding. The survey results will help promote water recycling as a reasonable means of extending our available water resources. Another purpose of this survey is to assist agencies which might benefit &om the newly established WateReuse Fiance Corporation.

The WateReuse Board has set a deadline of January 15, 1993 for presentation of the data to the Board. To meet this deadline, we need your response to the enclosed questionnaire no later than October 15, 1992. After receiving the responses and a telephone follow-up, we will compile the data and prepare a report. Your prompt response will be highly appreciated. If you have any questions about the survey, please call Ms. Stephanie Williams at (916) 442-2746 or Dr. Bahman Sheikh at (213) 237-0887. Thank you in advance for your valuable input.

Sincrely,

DAVID NAGLER Executive Director

A S S O C I A T I O N O F C A L I F O R N I A

1992 SUR KEY OF STATE WATER RECYCLING POTENTIAL

1. Name of Responding Agency: Principal Activity:

2. Name@) of Your Regional Water Quality Control Board($?

3. If there are any private water purveyors in your service area that represent an opportunity for use of reclaimed water, please identi&:

4. PLEASE COMPLETE PROJECT DATA SHEET. USE A SEPARATE SHEET FOR EACH PROJECT.

5. Would you be interested in assistance-at no cost to your agency-in applying for low-interest state loans? Yeso No0

6. The newly formed WateReuse Finance Corporation can provide a mechanism to finance water reclamation projects through a certificate of participation leadpurchase p l e d program. Would you be interested in a presentation to discuss the WateReuse Finance Corporation and to get more information? Yes0 No0

7. 'In the last two years, have your water reclamation plans and projects been affected by any of the following factors? Circle the appropriate numbers in all boxes that apply:

8. Would you like to receive a copy of the report of the results of this survey? Yes0 No0

Budget ProblemsD

Recession0

Drought0

Long-Term Water Shortage0

Changes In the Regulatory Climate O

Public Pressure Re/ Water Reclamation0

PoliticaVLegislative Mandates I3

Other InfluencesD

-

This survey questionnaire was completed by:

Title Telephone:

Date: Thank you very much for your prompt response.

Positive Impact, More Reuse 3 2 1

3 2 I

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

3 2 1

Please FAX the completed questionnaire, along with the project data sheet(s) to: F A X : 213 1 237-0077

Negative Impact, Less Reuse -1 -2 -3

-1 -2 -3

-1 -2 -3

-1 -2 -3

-1 -2 -3

-1 -2 -3

-1 -2 -3

- 1 -2 -3

-1 -2 -3

WateReuse Association of California ATTENTION: Bahman Sheikh

WATEREUSE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA ***** 1992 SURVEY OF WATER RECYCLING POTENTIAL

Project Name(1): {Please use a separate sheet for each distinct project, byfirst copying the blank)

Purpose of Project(2): Water ReclamatlonlReuse L]; Pollution ControllDisposal u; Other L] l Multi-Purpose u Project Location: (Counties and any cities)

Other Participating Agencies:

Roles of Other Agencies(3):

Groundwater Recharge - - - --

Seawater Intrusion Barrier - ----- Environmental Enhancement

-

Other:

(I) Your internal project designation. Ifthe project is phased, co~nplete a separate sheet for each phase of the project.

(2) Ifthe purpose of this project does not include any water recycling, do not include the project in this survey.

(3) Other agencies ntay be: supplier of reclai~~ied water/e//lnt, ~vholesaler of the product, or purveyor of water at the retail level.

(4) Project stage refevs to its current (end of 1992) Ittplettientation status.

(5) In this coluit~n give Acre-J,/yr for coi~ipleted/operating water recycling project

(6) Esti~iiate incre~tiental cost of lreatinent (beyond NPDES require~tientsfov discharge) and reclait~ied ~vater distribution to custo~ners.

I (7) Give your best estiirinte of the probabili!~ (in percent) that each elett~ent of the project ~vill be it~iplett~ented.

List of Respondents

Appendix B

Appendix B. LIST OF RESPONDENTS

IP- I Report I Name of Agency I mroierts 1Rw-l h Itation?

santa~osa,cityof 1 I 1 I Y I Y

AlamedaCountyWaterMct

CatralCoIl$aCmtaSanaaryDistrict

Colltra Costa Water District

c&? Y Y SowrmacoUnn,PublicWorks

-- East Bay Municipal Water District 4 11 2 Fairfield, City of 0 2 Fairfielbsuisun Sewer M c t 1 2

8 1 Y I Y

1 2 1

. . Llvwmm, C i of Marin Municipal Water District

NapaSauihtionDistrict

Name

soon~~inebaugh ~ ~ i r

NorthUarinWaterDkhict

Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant Petaluma, C i of Sau F&, C i and Comfy of

SanJose,Cityof

Saata Clara Valley Water District

1 Goleta Sanitary District 1 1 3 1 N ] N I Y l~elix~artirrez 1 (805)967-4510 1

Nnmber ('707) 524-5189 non 527-223 1

2

2

2 '

. .

1 2

2

santa C- C i of SumryVa~e, C i of

UnionSanitarylMrict Total In Reaion 2:

2 1 1 1 1 2

Y

Y Y -

2 2 2

1 1

4 35

Lompoc, C i of Monterey R e g i d Water Pollution Control Agency

SanLuisObisDaCiof

RichardHanis RickWood R Luthv

Y

Y Y

2 2

2

2

2 2

Sari Luis O b ' i , C Q I J ~ ~ ~ of saub ~diaf.a Comfy water Agency

Sarda Badmf& City of

N

Y

Y (510) 287-1675 (707) 428-7481 (7073 429-8930

Y Y

Y

2 2

2

1 1 1

Total In Region 3: 1 12 I

N

N Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

I

3 4 1

I

Calleguas Muhipal Water District

Castaic Lake Water Agency

~ B a s h M d c i p a l W a t e r l M r i c t

Cerritos. C i of

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y Y

3 3 3

1 1 4 1 Y I Y I Y ~ ~ e i e h ~ o n ~ o l l e 1 (818) 953-9647

Y Y

Y Y Y

3

3 3

1 1 3 3

(5101 674-8083

JiiDue~ig James Kelly

Y Y

Y

N Y N

Y Y Y

(5 10) 659-1970 (5 10) 689-3890

Y Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

4

4 4

4

William- Bob Castle

Emeste~tErskine

Y Y Y

Y Y

(5 10) 373-5230 (4 15) 924-4600 (7073 2 5 ~ 0 2 5

Chris DeGabriele

Dakystadc ThomasHargis Karen Kubidc KristineCo7za

Y

Y

N

Y

N Y N

(415) 897-4133 (415) 329-2287 (707) 778-4304 (415) SS4-8206 (408) 277-2991

Robin Saundas Christine Fiher RichardCortes

Y Y Y

Bid1 Molnar 1 (4081265-2600 (408) 984-3183 (408) 730-7426 (510) 790100

Y

Y

Y

Y

N N N

Gary Keefe

RobatJaqug David Pierce

(805) 736-1261 (408) 372-3367 (805) 781-7220

WendeUWilkes

LyrmAndRson Alisonwhitney

Y

N Y Y

(805) 7814657 (805) 568-3545 (805) 564-5574

Donald Kendall Robe~tSagehom V i Grebbien RonBabel

(805) 5269323 (805) 2553866 (310) 217-2222 (310) 860-0311


San Diego, City of (Clean Water) /- 4 9 Y Y Y Harold Bailey (619) 5334205

San Elijo Joiat Powers AdmiQ 1 9 Y Y Kellene Bum-Lucht (619) 438-7755 SollthCoastWaterDishict 4 ' 9 Y N Y Michael Dunbar (714) 4994555

Vd& Water District 2 9 N N Y MaryCWes (619) 7444460

VaUey Cader Municipal Water District 6 9 Y N Y Wally Grabbe (619) 749-1600

V i Irrigation District 2 9 Y Y Y ThomasWilson (619) 724481 1 WestemMunicipal WaterDistrict 4 9

Tofa1 In -on 9: 1 55

Eshmcded Number ofPotenba1 FuturePrqectr: 1 230 Total Number Ofpanrapants: 1 111

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Regions

Appendix C

I . CALlFORNlA REGIONAL WATER Q U A U N CONTROL BOARD REGIONS

Projections of Water Recycling Capacity by Region

Appendix D

Appendix D: PROJECTIONS OF WATER RECYCLING CAPACITY BY REUSE CATEGORY

Name of Agency


Name of Agency

Napa Sanitation District Nape Sanitation District Napa Sanitation District Napa Sanitation District Norih Marin Water District Nodh Marin Water District Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant Petaluma, City of Petaluma, City of San Francisco, City and County San Francisco, City and County San Francisco, City and County San Francisco, City and County San Jose, Cily of San Jose, City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara, City of Sunnyvale, City of Union Sanitaty District Union Sanitary District Union Sanitary District Union Sanitary District

Total for Region 2 Ooleta Sanitary District Lompoc, City of Iampoc, City of Lompoc, City of Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency San Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo. County of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, County of Santa Barbara County Water District Santa Barbara County Water District Santa Barbara County Water District Santa Barbara County Water District

RWQCB

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

Project Name

Cameros Cameros Carneros - - - -- - Kennedy Oolf Course Bel Marin Keys Unit V Oolf Course Renaissance Estates Oolf Course Water Reclamation City of Petaluma City of Petaluma San Francisco Reclamation Program San Francisco Reclamation Program San Francisco Reclamation Program San Francisco Reclamation Program Oolden Triangle Water Reclamation Oolden Triangle Water Reclamation Oolden Triangle Water Reclamation Oilroy Reclamation Plant Water Reclamation Sunnyvale Water Reclamaton Hayward Reclaimed Water Marsh Nonpotable Wastewater Reuse Master Plan USD Truck Fill Station Treatment Plant Reclaimed Water System

OSD Reclaimed Wastewater Project Cily of Lompoc City of Lompoc City of L o m p Food Crop Irrigation Water Reclamation Plant Water Reclamation Plant Country Club Estates CSA-7A Black Lakes Development CSA-1G Oak Shores Development CSA-18 Buellton Ouadalupe Solvang Santa Maria

Reuse Type

Agriculture Environmental

Landscape Landscape

Landscape Landscape Landscape Agriculture Landscape Industrial

Landscape Toilets

Treatment Plant Agriculture Industrial Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape

Environmental 4,031 AFY included

Existing Reuse (Apy)

0 0 0 0 0 0

600 1,320

300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

450 0

1 1,200 in Alameda

1995 (AFY)

500 0

460 385

0 3 82

1,800 680

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100 7,280

0 County Water

Median Strips WWTPSpray

Region 2 Landscape

Environmental Landscape Recharge

Agriculture Agriculture

Landscape Agriculture Landscape Landscape Recharge Recharge Recharge Recharge

0 0

45,873 0

400 0 0

5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 (AFY)

0 200

0 15

382 0

1,600 600 1 50 345

2.966 1,310 4.62 I 4,070 1,870 5,060 3,000

SO 0 0

District 2

840 148,269

1,200 2,400

600 1,000

30,000 400

2.000 10 46 62

353 702 822

6,855

0 0

60,927 600

2.000 600

0 5,000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 840

21.752 0 0 0

3,200 0 0 0 9

46 62

3 53 468 822

6,855

2010 (AFY)

0 0 0

200 0 0

800 1,200

0 700

6.02 1 2,661 2,276 7,030 1,130

10.840 0

SO 0 0

100% 90% 60% 100% 80% 80% 80%

I

0 0

22,167 600

0 0

400 20,000

400 800

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

"Ultimate" (MY)

1,000 200 460 600 382 382

4,800 3,800

450 1,045 8,987 3,971 6,897

11,000 3,000

15,900 3,000 1,000 7,280 5,600

Prob- ability

100% 75% 85% 95% 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 90% 70% 70% 70% 70%


,'

/

Name of Agency

Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, County of Los Angela, County of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, County of Pomona, City of Pomona, City of Pomona, City of Pomona, City of Pomona, City of San Buenaventura, City of Santa Monica, City of Santa Monica, City of Santa MoniccCity of Santa Monica, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Thousand Oaks, City of Thousand Oaks, City of United Water Conservation District United Water Conservation District United Water Conservation District United Water Conservation District Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Upper San Oabriel Valley Municipal Water District Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Ventura County Waterworks D i i c t

Project Name

Central City-Elysian Park Water Reuse Projecl GTiffith Park Weatside Water Reclamation Project Headworks East Valley Water Reclamation Project Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier Puente Hills Reclaimed Water Distribution System Long Beach Master Plan Lung Beach Master Plan Puente Hills Reclaimed Water Distribution System Whinier Namows Recreation Area City of Industry Expansion Rio Hondo Program Montebello Forebay Recharge Expansion Pomona Reclaimed Water System Pomona Reclaimed Water System Pomona Reclaimed Water System Pomona Reclaimed Water System Pomona Reclaimed Water System Reclamation Master Plan Arboretum I Water Garden I Arboretum 11 Water Garden I1 Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant Olsen Road Water Reclamation Plant Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant Oxnard Treated Water PIojed Oxnard Treated Water Project Oxnard Treated Water Project Oxnard Treated Water Project San Gabriel Valley Water Reuse Program San Gabriel Valley Water Reuse Program San Gabriel Valley Water Reuse Program San Gabriel Valley Water Reuse Program Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant

D-4

R W W B

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Reuse Type

Landscape Landscape

Existing Reuse ,,,

0 900

1995

(AFY) 700 0

10,000 AFY included in West Besin MWD 9,300 5,000 3,000

0 0

0 290 0

3,600

0 50 3

175 37 2 0 0 0 14 23 700 0

250 0

0 0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Recharge Recharge Barrier

Industrial Industrial Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape

2000 (AFY)

1,000 3,000

0 17,000 3,000

0 0

0

560 0 0

0 50 2

I55 38 8 0 0 0 0

0 1,100

0 0

0 0

5,000 5,000

5,000 5,000

0

3,000 1.000

0 0

700 0 0 0 0

3,100 0 0 0

2010 (AFY)

1,300 6,000

0 10,000

0 770

2,680

2,100 1,750 3.000 5.000

16,700 AFY included Recharge


Industrial

L a n Q c a ~ Other

Landscape Landscape Landscape

Toilets Toilets


Landscape Landscape Recharge

Agriculture Industrial

Landscape Recharge


Landscape Recharge

Agriculture

10.000 32,000 6,000 670

2,680

5,200 2,645 3,000 8,600

60.000 1,205 85

4,028 1,200

2 650 7 23 14 23

12,500 2,000 280 1,400 1,400 5,000

5,000 5,000 5.000 1.000 8,000 4,000 27*000 1,600

--

70% 70% 50% 100% 90%

90% 100% 75% 85%

60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

80% 100% 80% 70%

100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

"Ultimate" (AFY)

3,000 9,900

in Central 50,000 1,095 75

3,662 82 1 193 650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

1.000 0 0 0

0

Prob- ability 60% 40%

Basin MWD 10,000

5 5 8 4 7 0 7 23 0 0

10,100 2,000

0 1,400 1,400

0 0

0 0 0

5,000 3,000 27,000 1,600


/

Name of Agency

Walnut Valley Water District Walnut Valley Water District Walnut Valley Water District Walnut Valley Water District Water Replenishment District of Southern California Water Replenishment District of Southern California Water Replenishment District of Soulhem California Water Replenishment District of Southern California West Basin Municipal Water District West Basin Municipal Water District West Basin Municipal Water District

Total for Reglon 4 Ceres, City of 53 R Dinuba, City of Dinuba, City of 7 L Lodi, City of - - sfk Lodi, City of e - . A 5 SR Los Banos, City of

Project Name

Golden Springs Cumer Road Busineso Parkway Pre-existing projects Alamitos Barrier Recycled Water Projed Dominguez Oap Barrier Water Reuse Montebello Forebay Montebello Forebay Advanced Treatment Project West Basin Reclamation Project West Basin Reclamation Project West Basin Reclamation Project

Wastewater Reclamation Facility Wastewater Reclamation Facility Wastewater Reclamation Facility WaterReuse 49 Megawatt Steam Injected Gas Turbine

RWWB

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 6 5 5 5 5

Reclamation District 2068 / 5 IIanford, City of t Kem County Water Agency 7 L Kern County Water Agency 1 L Kern County Water Agency T I- Taft WTP. City of --- p t Woodlake, City of --- T L Calaveras County Water Distrid $3 R Calaveras County Water District S 3 R Merced, City of S 3 R Merced, City of s ~ R Parli~, City of - 2 1 Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District SCi Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District % Tuolumne Utility District S3K

Total for Reglon 5 Running Springs Water District South Tahoe Public Utility District South Tahoe Public Utility District

Total for Region 6

Reuse Type

Landscape

Landscape h d s c a ~ e Landscape

loo%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 80% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100%

75% 100% 5%

Drain Water Recovery & Reuse City ofHanford County Sewage Treatment Plants County Sewage Treatment Plants County Sewage Treatment Plants Water Reclamation Woodlake Wastewater Treatment Plant Forest Meadows La Contenta I Westewater Treatment Plant Expansion Wetlands Area City of Parlier Wastewater Treatment Plant Sacramento County Water Reclamation Facility Sacramento County Water Reclamation Facility Regional Sewer Reclaim Water

9,000 10,096

45,000 200

5,000 649 790

450 120

16.800 1,456 1,270 850 895

a200 ~09,661) 1.120

5,000 3,000 9,120

Agriculture Recharge

Agriculture Evaporation

Recharge Agriculture Agriculture Landscape

Landstype A g r i c u l t u ~

Environmental Agriculture

h b p e Treatment Plant

Agricul~ure Region 6

Snow-making Agriculture

L a n h ~ e Region 8

5 5F SF SF 5F 5F 5F 5s 5s 5s SS 5s 55 5s 6s

Existing Reuse ,,,

0 0

0

1,000

8,000 4.0 1 1 - 40,000 100

4,000 424 790

78 0 0

1,456 1,270

0 0

1,500 66,735 ------

0 4,000

0

4,000

Advanced Wastewater Treatment & Reclamation Harvey Placa Dam Harvey Place Dam

199S (AFY)

30 50

100 0

100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 10%

6,8 6 6

30,000

38,000 32,000 452,189 3,361 5,329 3,065 1,700 1.230 200

5,000-10,000 AFY (1997) included in County Sanitation Districts of Los Angela 5,000-10.000 AFY (1998) included in City of Los Angeles, Harbor 50,000-75,000 AFY included in County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

245 0 0 0 59 0

0 40

11,200 0 0

640 895 0

17.263 698 500

1,000 2,198

2000 (AFY)

0 30

0 0

10.000 AFY (1996) Bam'er

Industrial Landscape Region 4 Recharge

Agriculture Recharge


Environmental --- 1,0061 0

681 0 0 0 72 0

0 40

5,600 0 0

105 0

300 10,473 110 500 0

610

2010 (AFY)

0

10 0

0

included in 0

0 0

89,217 2,352

0 1,569 1,185

0 0 --

0 1,727

0 0 0 94 0

322 40 0

0 0

105 0

400

5,608 280 0 0

280

"Ultimate" (AFV

30 90

100 1,000

County Sanitation 5,600

9,000 7,000

138,279 281 715 1,073 500 615 0

Prob- ability 80% 80% 80% 100%

Districts of 9,400

14,000 5,000 71,426 728 1,694 423 15 615 200

Los Angela 5.000

0 5,000 80,199

0 2,920

0 0 0 0


Orange County Water District Alamitos Batrier Injection Orange County Water District Qreen Acres Project I Orange County Water District (Ireen Acres Project I1

D-6


Name of Agency

D-7


Project Name Name of Agency


Name of Agency

Vallecitos Water District Vallecitos Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District Vallcy Center Municipal Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District Vista Irrigation District Vista Irrigation District Vista Irrigation District Vista Imgation District Western Municipal Water District Western Municipal Water District Western Municipal Water District Western Municipal Water District

Total for Redon 9

INCREMENTAL TOTALS:

CUMULATIVE TOTALS:

Project Name

Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility Central San Marcos Water Reclamation Facility Skyline Wastewater Treatment Plant Lower Moose Canyon WRF 1.65 Ultimate Lake Turner WRF Central Valley Sewer 1.3 Central Valley Sewer 1.3 Lower Moose Canyon WRF 1.65 Ultimate Lower Moose Canyon WRF 1.65 Ultimate VID Reclamation Plan VID Reclamation Plan Shadow Ridge Country Club VID Reclamation Plan Arlington Basin Groundwater Desalter Project Indian Hills Reclamation Project March Reclamation Project Rancho CalifornialJoaquin Ranch Reclamation

RWWB

9 9 9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9 9 9

9 9 9 9

9

Reuse Type

Aim-d I\gnndiLand Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Landscape Landscape Recharge

Agriculture lndustrial Landscape Landscape

Region 9

Existing Reuse (AFY)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

260 0

4.44 1 1,310

26 1 269

16,722

383,752

383,752

1995 (AFY)

0 0

34 0

780 0 0 0

310 0

32 0 0

1.659 0 0

91

20,130

270,302

654,054

2000 (AFY)

1,100 2,600

22 0 0

30 250 410

0 1,200

0 0

3,040 0 0 0 0

58,119

386,520

1,040,574

2010 (AFY)

,2,300 3,400

0 0

780 505

0 330 30

' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

312

44,749

288,045

1,328,619

"Ultimate"

( A W 3,400 6,000

56 410 780

1,210 250

1.100 340

1,200 32

260 3,040 6,100 1,310

26 1 672

167,947

168,160

1,496,779

Prob- ability

80% 50% 75% 75% 20% 90% 90% 75% 75% 10% 90% 100% 50% 100%

List of Respondents & Purpose9' of Projects

Appendix E

Appendix E. LIST OF RESPONDENTS AND "PURPOSE" OF PROJECTS

Name of Agency


Modesto Idgat ion~ct 0 5 S Parlier, City of 1 W 5 S fkmamto Regional County 1 W 5 S Tuolunme Utility M c t 1 W3,M 5 S

Total In Region 5: I7 I7

~ C o l m t y W a t e r D i s t r i d 0 6 Rumkg Spr& Water District 1 W 2 6.8 South Tahoe Public Utility District 1 W 6

Total In Regron 6: 2 3

Barstow, City of 0 W P 7 &adzella Valley Water District 2 W 7

DesertwaterAgRLEY 2 W 7

Total In Region 7: 4 3

ChinoBasinMlmidpalWater~d 7 W 8

cOJ=% city of 0 8 EastanMlmidpal Water Dimid 7 8 EL&ore Valley Mmicipal Water District 3 WJ' 8 Irvine Rauch Water Dkbict 10 w 2 8 OrangeCoustyhitationMEts 2 W N 8 Orange CaYaty Water District 6 K O 8 San Bemardinq City of 1 P N 8 SantaAnaWatashedprojectAuthority 2 p.0 8 V i Ciof 1 W 8 Yucaipa Valley Water District 1 W 8


Number of Name of Agency Purpose*

projects RWQCB

I

El Tor0 Water Dkrict 1 W % 9 South h g e County Reclamation Authority 2 W 8.9

Total In Region 8: 43 13

CapiseawBeadlwater 1 W 9

Capistrcmo Valley Water W c t 1 W 9

CarlsbadMunicipalWaterWCt 1 W 9 EncinawastewaterAutk&y 1 W 9 Eupndido, City of 1 W 9 Fallbrook Public Utility District 2 W 9

F a l l b m k S a n a a r y ~ c t 5 W 9 La M e City of 0 9 Leucadia County Water District 1 W 9 Moulton Niguel Water District 2 W 9 Oaamide, C i of 3 W 9

Oliveahain Municipal Water D i i c t 3 W 9

otay Water W d 3 W I 9 Padre Dam Municipal Water District 1 W 9

Poway, City of 2 W 9

Ramona Municipal Water District 2 w.0 9 RartchoWondaWaterDistrict 1 M 9 S a n c l ~ C i t y o f 1 w,p 9

Saa Diego, City of 1 W 9 San Diego. City of (Cleaa Water) 4 W 9

Saa Elijo Joint Powers Autharity 1 W 9 s o l d h ~ o a s t w a t e r m c t 4 w 8.9 Vallecitos Water Dishict 2 W 9 Valley Centa Municipal Water District 6 W 9 Vista Irrigation District 2 W 9

WestanMtmicipal W a t e r W c t 4 9

Total In Region 9: 55 26 Total Number ofPotentid Future Projects: 230 111 :Total Pmrinpants

W=Water Rerme; bPolIntion Control; O=Otkq M = = M ~ ~ . .

Capital Costs By Respondents

Appendix F

Appendix F. CAPITAL COSTS OF WATER RECLAMATION

NAME OF AGENCY PROJECT NAME

Total for Region 2 Sl99,653,OOO ~301,758,6 15,272 21,697 32,359 35,231 102,109 &leb Sanitary District GSD Reclaimed Wastewater Project $1 l,OOO.OOO $4,500,000 0 600 600 0 1.200 Montcrey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Food Cmp Irrigation $27,000,000 $43,000,000 0 20,000 5.000 5.000 30,000 San Luis Obispo, City of Water Reclamation Plant $5,800,000 0 1,200 0 0 2,400 Sanla Barbara, City of Water Reclamation $3,000,000 $10,000,000 600 500 0 0 1,100

Total for Region 3 S41,000,000 S63300.000 600 22.300 5.600 5.OOO 34,700


NAME OF AGENCY PROJECT NAME


F-3

NAME OF AGENCY

Thousand Oaks, City of Thousand Oaks, City of United Water conservation District United Water Conservation District United Water Conservation District United Water Conservation District Ventura County Waterworks District Walnut Valley Water District Walnut Valley Water District Walnut Valley Water District West Basin Municipal Water District West Basin Municipal Water District West Basin Municipal Water District

Total for Reglon 4 Ceres, City of Lodi, City of Reclamation District 2068 iianford, City of Calaveras County Water District Parlier, City of Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

Total for Reglon 5 Desert Water Agency Desert Water Agency

Total for Region 7 Orange County Sanitation Districts/OCWD Orange County Water District San Bernardino, City of Yucaipa Valley Water District El Toro Water District South Orange County Reclamation Authority South Orange County Reclamation Authority South Orange County Reclamation Authority

Total for Regton 8 Capistrano Beach Water Carlsbad Municipal Water District

PROJECT NAME

Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant Olsen Road Water Reclamation Plant Oxnard Treated Water Project Oxnard Treated Water Project Oxnard Treated Water Project Oxnard Treated Water Project Moorpark Wastewater Treatment Plant Golden Springs Currier Road Business Parkway West Basin Reclamation Project West Basin Reclamation Project West Basin Reclamation Project

Wastewater Reclamation Facility Water Reuse Drain Water Recovery & Reuse City of Hanford Forest Meadows City of Parlier Wastewater Treatment Plant Sacramento County Water Reclamation Facility

Desett Water Reclamation Facility 1 Desert Water Reclamation Facility I1

Seal Beach Reclamation Project Oreen Acres Project I Colton-San Bernardino Rapid Infiltration Yucaipa Valley Water District ETWD Wastewater Reclamation Sema Water Reclamation Project

CAPITAL Treatment

$1,300,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $lO,OOO.OOO $10,000,000 $2,000,000

$48,000,000 $69,000,000 $69,000,000

S288.316.000 $4,500,000

$35,000,000

$618,350 $260,000

$3,000,000 $8,420,000

SSlJ98.350 M54,398

$lO,OOO,OOO S10.254.398 $40,000,000 $lO,OOO,OOO $43,000,000 $15,000,000 $9,243,000

$lO,OOO,OOO

COSTS Dlstrlbutlon

$6,500,000 SlO0,OOO

$750,000 $2 10,000 $248,000 $271,000

$7,000.000 $29,000,000 ~9,000,000

S415.374.000

$250,000 $10,000 $94,000

$2,100,000 $2,454,000

$3.85 1 $4,000,000 S4,003,851

$29,600,000 $20,000,000

$27,000,000 $4,567,420 ----- --

S5,000,000

Exlstlng

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81,335 2,352 1,185 8,000 4,011

78 1,270

0 16,896 2,184

0 2,184

0 3,300

0 0

400 0

$200,000 Sl5.000,OOO

SlOlJ67,420 $350,000

$2,040,000

0 0

3,700 0 0

Sema Water Reclamation Project SOCRA Regional Storage Project

Golden Lantern Median Encina Basin Reclamation Project

WATER 1995

10,100 0 0 0 0 0

1,600 30 50

100 5.600 9,000 7,000

130,467 28 1

1,115 1.000

245 0 0

1.535 4,176 3.4 16 6,500 9,916

0 0

30 770

0 1,758

$700,000

S127,943,000

$360,000

400 0

2.958 100 700

REUSE 2000

700 250

0 0 0 0 0 0

30 0

9,400 14,000 5,000

69,623 728 630

0 681

0 0

105 2,144

0 3,500

3,500 5,000

0 5

230 475 329 600

0 6,639

100 669

POTENTIAL 2010

1,100 0

5.000 5,000 5,000 5.000

0 0

10 0

5.600 0

5,000 71.716

0 0 0

1,727 322

0 105

2,154 0

5,000

5,000 8,900

0 6

1,000 625

0

(AFY) nUltlmaten

12.500 280

5,000 5.000 5,000 5.000 1,600

30 90

100 30,000 38.000 32,000

418,824 3,361 2,930 9,000

10,096 450

1,270 1,745

28,852 5,600

16,800 22,400 13,900 3,300

41 3,330 1,500 3,087

0 0

10,531 100

0

1,000 6,000

32,158 500 400


Total for Reglon 9 S121,666,000 S278,W2J57 4,173 14,970 33,111 29,406 8793oq

INCREMENTAL TOTALS: s%so,ao,74a sr,ra7,2t9,azs 141,430 228,181 185,335 194,269 79,244

CUMULATIVE TOTALS: ~840,630,748 ~2,007,860,376 141,430 369,611 554,946 749,215 828,459

Other Studies

Appendix G

The following section reviews past sumey results on the subject of existing and future water reclamation.

State Water Resources Control Board

The State Water Resources Control Board's Office of Water Recyding completed a survey of state water reclamation for the year 1987. In September, 1990, it reported a statewide total of 266,559 AFY of reuse based on 200 s w e y respondents' data.15 It solicited water reclamation projections and types of reuse from water agencies across the state. This 1990 survey included 200 water reclamation plants. About 10 reclamation plants may have been missing from the analysis.16 A total of 854 user sites were recorded. Almost 67 percent of the projects were designated for landscape irrigation followed by agriculture (28 percent), environmental (1.1 percent), industrial (1.4 percent), and groundwater recharge (0.8 percent). Agricultural use accounted for 63 percent of the total volume of water followed by groundwater recharge (14 percent), landscape imgation (13 percent) and environmental use (4 percent). The regions reclaiming the most wastewater were Central Valley (Fresno and Sacramento, 43 percent), Los Angeles (23 percent) and Santa Ana (10 percent). The 1987 data recorded 140 treatment plants (129,651 AFY freshwater savings) for pollution abatement/control and 60 treatment plants (95,000 AFY freshwater savings) for water supply.l7

The SWRCB s w e y report concludes with a projected use for 1988-89 of additional 48,460 AFY of reclaimed water. A useful appendix in this report lists all survey participants and various infonnation about reuse amounts and types, treatment, price, and specific end users.

Another SWRCB-DWR study, Bulletin 4, estimated that California could acquire almost 800,000 AFY of additional water by the year 2000 through water redamation.18

There was substantial overlap of respondents between the SWRCB survey and the present WateReuse survey. Agencies that did not respond to the WateReuse survey but did submit existing reuse data to the state survey account for 84,400 AM of reclaimed water.

Water Recycling 2000 In Septeniber, 1991, the State Water

Conservation Coalition Reclamation/Reuse Task Force and the Bay Delta Reclamation Sub-Work Group published a report on the potential to increase the use of recycled water by the year

2000.19 The objective of the Water Remline 2000 survey was to assess firm and reliable potential to the year 2000. The report discussed firm water reclamation potential and addressed the various regulatory, financial and institutional constraints.

Water Recvclig 2000 uvdated the data from the 1990 SWRCB s w e y for the period 198749 and found an additional 58,000 AFY reclaimed water use. The analysis of the survey showed that agriculture used 53 percent of all reclaimed water, groundwater recharge 21 percent, landscape irrigation 16 percent, and wildlife habitat 6 percent.

Water Recvcline 2000 reported a summary of the raw data (region by region) from respondents but also adjusted reported reuse projections to account for uncertainties due to the identified constraints. If a project was under construction, its reported yield was adjusted downward by 20 percent. If it was in the design stage, its yield was cut by 40 percent. Planned.projects were de- escalated by 60 percent. Further, this survey made a major distinction between projects that displace fresh water use and those that would not. After these adjustments and distinctions, additional displacement water generated from water recycling was reported at 244,100 AFY by the year 2000. Without the adjustments, total reported reuse for the year 2000 was reported at 826,240 A N .

Metropolitan Water District The Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California currently Ouly, 1993) is preparing an analysis of water reuse forecasts by its member agencies (RWQCB regions 4,6,7,8, and 9) as part of its Resource Assessment Sumey. To resolve reported differences and to the extent practicable and reasonable, WateReuse survey data were reconciled with MWD data in consultation with the original respondents. However, minor differences remain in some of the projected reuse volumes. Only time will tell which prediction of future potential is more closely realized.

in Southern California, a number of water agencies did not respond to the WateReuse survey. Data on these projects were obtained from MWD from a draft compilation of its as yet unpublished swey. Some of these reuse projects did not specify the types of reuse and are listed under the "Miscellaneous" category.

Central Basin Municipal Water District

Ceniral Basin MWD with the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD, Three Valleys MWD, and Water Replenishment District of Southern

1SIbid.. p. 1. "%id., p. 3 . 17CSWRCB, p. 11. 1SPolicies and Goals for California Water Manaaement: The Next 20 Years, Bulletin 4, DWSWRCB, p. 46. lgWater Recvtlin~ 2000: California's Plan for the Future, State Water Conservation malition &&mation/Re-Use Task Force and Bay Delta Reclamation Sub-Work Group, printed by the WateReuse Assocation, Sacramento, September 1991.

California, recently completed a s w e y of water reuse in the Los Angeles County region.20 It compiled water reclamation data for FY 1991-92 and presented the forecast for FY 2020-21. Quantities found in this report were used for comparison and verification of reuse volumes in areas with common respondents.

DIFFERENCES FROM OTHER SURVEYS

There are significant differences in scope, horizon and methodology between this survey by the WateReuse Association and each of the previous sweys reviewed above. For example, the present s w e y sought to assess water reclamation potential beyond the year 2000. Whereas the SWRCB survey inferred the purpose of a redamation project (i.e. whether for pollution abatementJcontro1 or water supply) based upon a number of factors, the present survey asked this question specifically on the questionnaire.

A major distinction of this survey is that it was conducted to obtain an accurate but as optimistic a measure of the future potential as possible, whiie investigating existing constraints. While no single agency would be held to a commitment to reclaim the exact volumes projected by the precise date indicated, the overall figures are believed to be a fair representation, at this point in time, of water reclamation potential in the years 2000 and 2010.

Another objective of this survey was to obtain a measure of the "ultimate" reuse potential. Clearly, the word ultimate meant different t h i i to different respondents. In many cases, no more water recycling was projected for the ultimate than for the year 2010 or even earlier.

zoR&onal Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Owrations Coordination Stude Central Basin MWD, Carson, CA, bi Engineering-Science, Pasadena, May, 1993.

Survey Responses

Appendix H

SURVEY RESPONSES & Copies of all raw data are available from the

DATA VALlDlTY WateReuse Assodation office in Saaamento. Raw data can also be made available on magnetic media to persons and agendes interested in

A M e t Y of ante' o r e ' o n s and further analpis re-aggregation of the nwey their memberships were contacted as the initial results by contacting the City of Los partidpant Additional names were added Office of Water Reclamation at (213) 237-0887. from agencies such as the California Department of Water Resources, information from WateReuse members and the 1990 SWRCB survey. The initial mailing included 163 agencies. A total of about 240 agenaes were contacted by the end of the survey. There were a few duplications in the latter figure. Although an attempt was made to be comprehensive, this survey does not include all water agendes in the state. The final tally of returned questionnaires was 111, only a 45 percent rate of response. However, this does not translate to a 45 percent underestimate of the actual potential for water reclamation. The true underestimation of this survey is probably less than 20 percent because of the overlapping jurisdictions of water agencies throughout the state. Many non-responders should not have been on the initial mailing list to begin. The SWRCB survey.had 200 respondents.

Some agencies declined to respond to the survey because they had no need for or were not in a position to reclaim wastewater. Efforts were made (in the form of numerous follow-up telephone calls and faxes to potential participants) to encourage those with data to contribute.

The survey analysis was based upon data supplied by agency personnel directly responsible for or involved with a water reclamation. Figures reported were not adjusted unless authorized by the respondents. Duplications were avoided to the best of our ability. After draft results were sent to all partidpants, we depended upon partidpants to inform us of any necessary corrections. When duplications and misinfor~nation were noted, the survey data were adjusted or removed and notes explaining the changes were inserted into the data base.

This survey is not intended to be used exclusively as a planning document, but to project future potential of water reclamation based upon input from many, not all, water agencies. The conclusions should be used carefully by those interested solely in planning future water supply to meet projected demands. The results of this survey do not commit any water agency or state or local government to fulfill the potential stated herein. The data presented should serve as another benchmark for planners to gauge the potential for water reclamation into the next century. While it might be expected that many agencies will eventually revise their water reuse potential upward, some may be forced to revise downward for fiscal and other reasons.

Survey Procedures

Appendix I

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT The WateReuse Association survey was

developed by the Survey Task Force of the M a t i o n . 2 1 Previous experience with past water recycling surveys was incorporated to the extent applicable and practicable.

A copy of the survey instrument (questionnaire) is reproduced in Appendix A. Three key areas surveyed were (a) the factors which influence water reclamation plans and projects, @) the actual water reuse potential including types and amounts of reuse and (c) capital costs of treatment and distribution.

DISTRIBUTION The process of data acquisition began in

October, 1992, and continued through May, 1993. Survey instruments were sent to participants based upon selection from several mailing lists. The initial list was provided by the California Department of Water Resources. This was supplemented by respondents to other surveys and membership lists of various professional associations.

SURVEY CONTENT The two-page questionnaire (survey

instrument) requested the following information: P Positive or negative impacts that influence

water reclamation. O Purpose of project - Pollution Control, Water

reuse, Multi-purpose, or Other. 0 Stage of project implementation. 0 Types of reuse. 0 Quantities of water to be recycled: Present,

1995,2000,2010, "Ultimate." 0 Estimated capital costs. D Overall probability of project completion. D Name of responding agencylperson.

Interest in low-interest loan through the WateReuse Finance Corporation.

SURVEY DATA DEFICIENCIES '

There were difficulties in obtaining consistent, reliable, comparable, and accurate data. The following problems were encountered in the course of data acquisition: D Variance within an agency - Depending

upon whom we contacted, the figures would change. And as plans were discussed, over time, estimates changed

D Missing data -Where no "ultimate" volume was given by a respondent, all previous incremental volumes were totaled and placed in the "Ultimate" column.

D Variance between agenaes - The same types of data gathered from different agendes often were very different because of changes over

time and interpretation of questions and assumptions. 0 Participation - Several agendes that were

contacted did not provide data, although they do practice water reclamation. Many agendes with water reclamation were probably not contacted because of inadequate contact information.

Appendix B l i i the names of water agendes, ' number of projects, contacts, and other information.

REVIEW OF DATA After the data were received and entered into

an electronic data management system (Excel spreadsheet), a number of tables (sorts) and figures were generated for review by the WateReuse Survey Task Force and the Board of Directors of the WateReuse Assodation. Necessary modifications were made only in consultation with the respondents in question.

=The Survey Task Force included Steve Kasower, Water Recycling Program, California Department of Water Resources, Julie Lie, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Ken Weinberg, San Diego County Water Authority, and Bahrnan Sheikh, Office of Water Redarnation, City of Los Angela.

Acknowledgements

Appendix J

Acknowledgements The WateReuse Assodation Board of Directors

John Bressan Bob Miele Kenneth Caldwell WilliarnRMills Anne Dunihue Carl Morrison Pat Ferraro Judy Parker Lois Humphreys David Requa Keith Israel Bob Whitley Jim Kelly Ronald Young Peter MacLaggan

Swey Task Force: Bahman Sheikh, Chair Steve Kasower Julie Lie Karen Roberts

0 Ken Weinberg

The WateReuse Swey Task Force members provided invaluable review comments, suggestions for graphic presentations and data aggregation. Stephanie Wiams, WateReuse staff member, distributed the survey instmment to the original mailing li t . The staff of the City of Los Angeles' Office of Water Reclamation made extensive follow-up telephone calls for verification and coaxing:

Abbas Amirteymoori Gary Ghiaey Jennifer Tonthat Neal Shapiro

Pat Duran-Healy provided the necessary administrative assistance to keep operations - running smoothly. Neal Shapiro prepared the final report including data management and graphics.

SURVEY OF FUTURE WATER RECLAMATION POTENTIAL FINAL … · survey of future water reclamation...

Documents

Transcript of SURVEY OF FUTURE WATER RECLAMATION POTENTIAL FINAL … · survey of future water reclamation...